A State Government

1
A State Governments Application of Life Cycle
Inventory Analysis

• InLCA/LCM 2003 Conference
• Seattle, Washington
• September 24, 2003
• David Allaway (Oregon Department of Environmental
  Quality) and Bev Sauer (Franklin Associates)

2
Overview

• Background and Policy Framework Why Waste
  Prevention and Recycling? Why Packaging? Why
  Life Cycle Analysis?
• The Life Cycle Analysis Partners, Methods, and
  Preliminary Results.
• How the Results May Be Used.

3
Preliminary Results
Location of Oregon
4
Background State of Oregon

• Population (2000) 3,421,000
• 79 urban/suburban 21 rural
• Portland-Salem metropolitan area 1,920,000
• 36 counties, 240 cities.
• Major industries high technology (manufacturing
  services), forest products (lumber, paper),
  agriculture (cattle, wheat, fruit, grass seed),
  tourism, services.
• 52 of land in federal ownership.
• As defined by U.S. Census.

5
Solid Waste Management in Oregon

• Most waste collection and disposal services are
  provided by the private sector.
• Solid waste collection is regulated by local
  governments (cities and counties).
• State government (DEQ)
• Permits/regulates disposal facilities
• Enforces opportunity to recycle laws
• Measures recovery rate and waste composition
• Provides education and technical assistance to
  cities, businesses, public
• Provides grants to local governments
• Enforces other provision of law

6
Solid Waste Management in Oregon (continued)

• Oregon was the first bottle bill (deposit)
  state in the United States (1970).
• Solid waste management hierarchy (in State law)
• First prevent,
• Then reuse,
• Then recycle,
• Then compost,
• Then recovery for energy,
• Then dispose in landfills.
• But historically, the focus has been on disposal,
  with recycling composting prominent since 1991.
• All counties have waste recovery goals DEQ
  reports attainment of goals annually.
• Recovery rate is currently 43.

7
Recycling is Up, But So is Waste Generation
8
Waste Generation

• Per-capita waste generation in Oregon increased
  28 from 1992 to 2001 (average 2.8 per year).
• Oregons per-capita waste disposal was the same
  in 2001 as it was in 1992, despite the fact that
  materials recovery more than doubled over the
  same time period.

9
Waste Policy Leadership Group

• Statewide advisory group (1999 - 2000) chartered
  to recommend future policy and program directions
  for DEQ.
• Waste prevention recommendations
• Focus on commercial/industrial sectors.
• Focus on high impact waste types.
• DEQ should take on roles where a statewide
  perspective is needed, state leadership is
  required, and there is a need not addressed by
  another entity.
• DEQ roles may include information provider,
  information hub, technology transfer, capacity
  building, evaluation, statewide coordination.

10
Statutory Background Policy (ORS 459.015)

• Pre-2001 Waste Reduction Policy
• Recycling a matter of statewide concern
  opportunity to recycle should be provided.
• Shortage of appropriate landfill sites exists in
  Oregon.
• Waste prevention, reuse, and recycling will
  extend landfill life and reduce environmental
  impacts of landfills.

11
2001 Legislative Findings (ORS 459.015)

• There are limits to Oregons natural resources
  and the environments ability to absorb the
  impacts of increased consumption and waste
  generation.
• It is in the best interest of the people of
  Oregon to conserve resources and energy.
• What does this mean?
• The policy framework of solid waste reduction has
  shifted from conserving landfill space to a
  broader set of natural resource and environmental
  issues. This is where LCA may be relevant.

12
New (2001) Waste Generation Goals (ORS 459A.010)

• Generation Disposal Recovery
• For the calendar year 2005 and subsequent years,
  no annual increase in per capita municipal solid
  waste generation and
• For the calendar year 2009 and subsequent years,
  no annual increase in total municipal solid waste
  generation.

13
Short-Term Waste Prevention Strategy

• Grants
• Promotion of materials exchanges/reuse
• Business demonstration partnerships and outreach
• Packaging efficiency waste prevention
• Green Photocopier project (led by Metro)
• Edible food salvage
• New yard debris chipper tax credit
• Technical assistance, information sharing,
  publications, videos
• Planning and evaluation

14
Business Packaging Project

• Packaging comprises 20 of waste generation in
  Oregon.
• May be easier for businesses to change packaging
  than product.
• Pilot project objectives
• Through technical assistance, accomplish
  measurable waste prevention at a small number of
  Oregon businesses (voluntary participation).
• Develop and promote best management practices.
• Evaluate effectiveness of pilot project and need
  for longer-term activities in these areas
  (non-regulatory only!).

15
A Common Question To Box, or To Bag?
16
Bags and Boxes

• Boxes have recyclability and recycled-content
  advantages over most types of bags.
• But bags have clear waste prevention advantages
  over boxes (for non-breakable items), due to
  lower weight.
• Different types of bags and void fills for boxes
  exist can we state with any certainty that one
  general approach is better than the other?
• Significant interest in this area, and potential
  to advance waste prevention.

17
Common Void Fill Options

• No void fill
• Inflated polyethylene air packets
• Expanded polystyrene loose fill (peanuts)
• Corn starch loose fill (peanuts)
• Molded pulp loose fill
• Crinkled kraft paper
• Crinkled newsprint
• Shredded 100 postconsumer corrugated containers
  or office paper

18
Common Business Perceptions

• The choice of void fill is the most important
  environmental choice (more so than choices about
  boxes).
• Plastic is made from oil and is therefore bad.
• By extension, products not made from oil arent
  bad (or as bad).
• Downstream (disposal) impacts are as important,
  or more important, than upstream (manufacturing)
  impacts.
• Wastes that biodegrade are inherently good.
• Recyclability is important.
• Significant environmental improvement is likely
  to be realized by increasing post-consumer
  content.

19
Questions

• Do the waste prevention options (bags, shredded
  void fill, lighter-weight void fill) make
  environmental sense?
• How do various options compare against each
  other? How much environmental gain can be
  achieved?
• Does it make sense to purchase a high-recycled
  content packaging material even if it has to be
  transported a greater distance?

20
More Questions

• What are the upstream impacts of biodegradable
  loose fill? How does it compare against other
  types of loose fill?
• How much energy is required to shred office paper
  or corrugated for loose fill? Does shredding
  make sense?
• If a retailer is interested in energy
  conservation, should they first focus on
  traditional areas (HVAC, lighting, etc.) or on
  the embodied energy of materials?

21
Life Cycle Inventory Analysis Background

• Commissioned by Oregon DEQ.
• Co-funded by DEQ, Metro (regional government of
  the Portland area) and U.S. EPA.
• Consultant team Franklin Associates (life cycle
  analysis) and Pack Edge Development (packaging
  engineering).
• Study is limited to packaging for mail-order
  non-breakable items.
• Inventory analysis, not impact analysis.
• Study reports life-cycle
• energy inputs by source (fuel) and also by type
  (process, transport, energy of material
  resource),
• solid wastes (process, fuel-related, and
  postconsumer),
• about 40 different atmospheric emissions
  (including 3 greenhouse gases) and about 40
  different waterborne emissions.

22
Materials Evaluated
Different levels of post-consumer content also
evaluated.
23
Study Activities Appendices

• Appendices/Background Documentation
• Representative product and transportation
  distances, modes.
• Definition of packaging systems composition and
  weights of representative packages.
• Energy requirements and environmental emissions
  for fuel production and consumption.
• Material production (polyethylene resin, bleached
  kraft paper, etc.) and product fabrication.
• Waste management.
• Two sets of appendices
• full appendices containing proprietary data
  sets.
• public appendices suitable for public release,
  aggregated to protect proprietary data.

24
Study Activities Report

• Report
• 1,000-pound modules (component materials).
• 10,000-package modules (as shipped).
• Spreadsheet model to explore what if scenarios.
  
• Variables include
• Packaging weight
• Packaging composition
• Level of post-consumer content
• Transportation distances (packaging to
  distribution center, packaged product to
  customer)
• Diversion rate (reuse or recycling of
  postconsumer packaging that diverts it from
  disposal).

25
Study Activities Critical Review

• ISO 14040 compliant critical review of full
  appendices and project report by panel of
  independent life cycle experts.
• Funded by U.S. EPA, Environmentally Preferable
  Purchasing Program.
• Scheduled for 4th Quarter of 2003.

26
Some Unusual Characteristics of This Project

• Move beyond single-criteria environmental issues
  (such as solid waste, use of renewable resources,
  etc.).
• Publicly-funded, not privately-funded. This may
  enhance perceived credibility of results.
• Reporting of results by multiple stages
  manufacture of product, transportation to order
  fulfillment center, transportation to customer,
  end-of-life disposal.
• Critical review by external review panel.
• Spreadsheet model for what if scenarios.

27
Preliminary Results
Preliminary Draft Results Energy (by process)
PE polyethylene PCR post-consumer recycled
(content) EPS expanded polystyrene
28
Preliminary Results
Preliminary Draft Results Energy (by source)
PE polyethylene PCR post-consumer recycled
(content) EPS expanded polystyrene
29
Preliminary Results
Preliminary Draft Results Energy (by type)
PE polyethylene PCR post-consumer recycled
(content) EPS expanded polystyrene
30
Preliminary Results

• Weight of materials used is a critical factor
• Heavy packages with low profile-per-pound have
  higher overall burdens than light packages with
  high profile-per-pound.
• Bags have much lower burdens than boxes because
  of their much lower weight.
• The heaviest box void-fill option (corrugated
  box molded pulp loose fill) weighs 26 times
  more than the lightest bag option (LLDPE bag).
• Plastics have higher energy of material resource,
  but lower fossil fuel use in process
  transportation (and overall) when used in
  packaging applications because of their low
  weight.
• Within individual types of paper packaging,
  increasing recycled content reduces total
  life-cycle energy use considerably, but reduction
  in non-renewable energy use varies.
• The option with the highest post consumer content
  loose fill (molded pulp) also has the highest use
  of non-renewable fuels!

31
Full Report

• Available in early 2004
• Send me an e-mail for notification
  allaway.david_at_deq.state.or.us

32
How Might the Results Be Used?

• Not to regulate users or manufacturers of
  packaging materials.
• Help users of packaging identify opportunities
  for environmental improvements.
• Demonstrate the environmental benefits of waste
  prevention (as it compares against recyclability
  and recycled content) help people think
  holistically (not just about recycling).
• Demonstrate that the environmental benefit of
  recycling isnt so much in keeping material out
  of the landfill but rather in providing materials
  to industry that can be used to displace virgin
  feedstock.
• Respond to criticisms of businesses that choose
  to use a non-recyclable or visibly non-renewable
  (but low weight) packaging material.
• Pieces of the study might be used in other
  contexts as well, both by DEQ and by other
  parties.

33
Contact Information

• David Allaway
• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
• [phone]
• allaway.david_at_deq.state.or.us
• Bev Sauer
• Franklin Associates
• [phone] x. 228
• bsauer_at_fal.com